diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/not-ipr.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/not-ipr.html | 49 |
1 files changed, 30 insertions, 19 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/not-ipr.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/not-ipr.html index eb61d00..9d2e34a 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/not-ipr.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/not-ipr.html @@ -1,22 +1,32 @@ <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> -<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays laws noip" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> <title>Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/not-ipr.translist" --> <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> +<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> +<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> +<div class="article reduced-width"> <h2>Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage</h2> -<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard M. Stallman</a></p> +<address class="byline">by +<a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman</a></address> +<div class="introduction"> <p> It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into -one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The +one pot and call it “intellectual property.” The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely. </p> +</div> <p> According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, @@ -47,7 +57,7 @@ asked me to propose some other name for the overall category—or have proposed their own alternatives (often humorous). Suggestions include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies. Some speak of -“exclusive rights regimes”, but referring to restrictions +“exclusive rights regimes,” but referring to restrictions as “rights” is doublethink too. </p> @@ -87,7 +97,7 @@ others. Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying. Legislators under the influence of the term “intellectual -property”, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides +property,” however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising. And these are just three out of many laws that the term refers to. </p> @@ -103,11 +113,11 @@ patent law is different. You'll rarely go wrong! In practice, nearly all general statements you encounter that are formulated using “intellectual property” will be false. For instance, you'll see claims that “its” purpose is to -“promote innovation”, but that only fits patent law and +“promote innovation,” but that only fits patent law and perhaps plant variety monopolies. Copyright law is not concerned with innovation; a pop song or novel is copyrighted even if there is nothing innovative about it. Trademark law is not concerned with -innovation; if I start a tea store and call it “rms tea”, +innovation; if I start a tea store and call it “rms tea,” that would be a solid trademark even if I sell the same teas in the same way as everyone else. Trade secret law is not concerned with innovation, except tangentially; my list of tea customers would be a @@ -115,7 +125,7 @@ trade secret with nothing to do with innovation.</p> <p> You will also see assertions that “intellectual property” -is concerned with “creativity”, but really that only fits +is concerned with “creativity,” but really that only fits copyright law. More than creativity is needed to make a patentable invention. Trademark law and trade secret law have nothing to do with creativity; the name “rms tea” isn't creative at all, and @@ -130,13 +140,13 @@ property” laws, and others are not; nonetheless, critics of the practice often grab for that label because it has become familiar to them. By using it, they misrepresent the nature of the issue. It would be better to use an accurate term, such as “legislative -colonization”, that gets to the heart of the matter. +colonization,” that gets to the heart of the matter. </p> <p> Laymen are not alone in being confused by this term. Even law professors who teach these laws are lured and distracted by the -seductiveness of the term “intellectual property”, and +seductiveness of the term “intellectual property,” and make general statements that conflict with facts they know. For example, one professor wrote in 2006: </p> @@ -179,7 +189,7 @@ support life-saving research. <p> Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term “intellectual -property”, the specific issues raised by the various laws become +property,” the specific issues raised by the various laws become nearly invisible. These issues arise from the specifics of each law—precisely what the term “intellectual property” encourages people to ignore. For instance, one issue relating to @@ -227,7 +237,7 @@ and you have a chance of considering them well. </p> <p>And when it comes to reforming WIPO, here is <a -href="http://fsfe.org/projects/wipo/wiwo.en.html">one proposal for +href="https://fsfe.org/activities/wipo/wiwo.en.html">one proposal for changing the name and substance of WIPO</a>. </p> @@ -241,23 +251,24 @@ Komongistan (Busting the term “intellectual property”)</a>. <p> Countries in Africa are a lot more similar than these laws, and “Africa” is a coherent geographical concept; nonetheless, -<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/africa-clinton"> +<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/africa-clinton"> talking about “Africa” instead of a specific country causes lots of confusion</a>. </p> <p> -<a href="http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/"> +<a href="https://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/"> Rickard Falkvinge supports rejection of this term</a>.</p> <p><a href="http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2016/11/cory-doctorow-sole-and-despotic-dominion/"> Cory Doctorow also condemns</a> the term “intellectual property.”</p> +</div> </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> -<div id="footer"> +<div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> <div class="unprintable"> <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to @@ -275,13 +286,13 @@ to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> - <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of our web pages, see <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a>. --> Please see the <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations -README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.</p> </div> @@ -302,7 +313,7 @@ of this article.</p> There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> -<p>Copyright © 2004, 2006, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 Richard M. Stallman</p> +<p>Copyright © 2004, 2006, 2010, 2013-2017, 2021 Richard Stallman</p> <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative @@ -312,7 +323,7 @@ Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> <p class="unprintable">Updated: <!-- timestamp start --> -$Date: 2018/12/15 14:02:38 $ +$Date: 2021/10/01 10:55:57 $ <!-- timestamp end --> </p> </div> |